Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent action, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the request is reviewed, not guaranteed, nothing publishes until approval, and payment doesn't affect fit or order. It also discloses the return values including a one-time token and domain-control challenge. This goes well beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose, then returns, then process. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clean and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a request tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and the review/approval process. It doesn't explain the domain-control challenge in detail, but that's not necessary for invoking the tool correctly. The process transparency helps set expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 67%, so most parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema. The optional notes parameter lacks a schema description and the tool description doesn't compensate, but this is a minor gap given the coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (list) and resource (offering) with a clear actor (ACI) and the company context. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like approve_listing or get_listing_status by focusing on the initial request action. The mention of returns (reference, token, challenge) further clarifies its role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context about when this tool is used: to request a listing, with a review and approval process. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent would understand this is the initiating step. The non-guarantee and approval requirement give practical guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.